Clowns are a Ten:Does no one else find this utterly depressing? Everything that ever is, was, just wiped out? Our entire existence not even as relevant as tears in the rain.

... so when the universe does end, what is there afterwards?

What was there before? I think Penn Jillette made this point best, which regards to death and non-existence: Does the year 1850 terrify you? You didn't exist then either. So why are you terrified of not existing in 2150? Also, think about how much envy someone who only got, say, 4 days of life would have for your 80+ years of likely existence. On the grander scale you suggest, if you're not depressed by the universe not existing before the big bang (or so we think), there's no particular reason you should be depressed about it not existing 40 billion years later. And what amount of time would be more appropriate? Do you want 10 billion more years? 100? The only other option is infinite life and infinite existence, which has it's own 'meaningless' and depressing aspects to think about if you really wanted to.

It all comes down to perspective: If you think about the idea that life and the universe are these unfathomably wonderful gifts, and that we get to enjoy them for incredibly vast stretches amounts of time, you could be elated about it, instead of depressed.

the cake is a pie:common sense is an oxymoron: ...Part 3 eliminates Pluto (its orbit crosses that of Neptune), Ceres (it's in the middle of the asteroid belt), and most TNOs regardless of size unless they happen to occupy "cleared" orbits (the ones discovered so far tend to have eccentric orbits, the ranges of which would be virtually impossible to clear of other objects)....

If Part 3 eliminates Pluto, shouldn't it also eliminate Neptune? Pluto couldn't clear Neptune out of its orbit, sure, but apparently Neptune couldn't clear Pluto either.

Not only is Neptune much larger than Pluto, but the two are in a 3:2 orbital resonance. Neptune's orbit is directly affecting that of Pluto, so even if its orbit isn't exactly "cleared," it's still obviously the dominant mass in that orbit. This may seem like a loophole, but it's legitimate. A planet clears its orbit by gravitational deflection of any smaller objects, and a deflection (or capture) into a stable resonant orbit eliminates any chance of collision. Despite Pluto's orbit appearing to cross that of Neptune, the two objects remain billions of miles apart, and in that sense Neptune's orbit is indeed "clear."

the cake is a pie:common sense is an oxymoron: ...Part 3 eliminates Pluto (its orbit crosses that of Neptune), Ceres (it's in the middle of the asteroid belt), and most TNOs regardless of size unless they happen to occupy "cleared" orbits (the ones discovered so far tend to have eccentric orbits, the ranges of which would be virtually impossible to clear of other objects)....

If Part 3 eliminates Pluto, shouldn't it also eliminate Neptune? Pluto couldn't clear Neptune out of its orbit, sure, but apparently Neptune couldn't clear Pluto either.

No. For a few reasons. First, Pluto is not a resident of Neptune's orbit, but a transient object that only crosses it from time to time. If that disqualifies Neptune, then the asteroids that cross our orbit disqualify us, and they clearly don't. Second, a planet does not need to clear its orbit. And a good thing, too, because no planet has a completely clean orbit, including ours. Under IAU rules, a planet only needs to be the dominant object in its immediate neighbourhood. Even if Pluto was a resident of Neptune's orbit, Neptune is many times larger: if Pluto got too close, Neptune's tidal forces would tear it apart. There remains some disagreement over particulars in scientific circles, but generally, a planet is the boss of its orbit and all other objects therein phear it. Trans-orbital objects, in and of themselves, do not disqualify planets; if they did, Jupiter, Earth, and Mars would also not qualify.

the cake is a pie:common sense is an oxymoron: ...Part 3 eliminates Pluto (its orbit crosses that of Neptune), Ceres (it's in the middle of the asteroid belt), and most TNOs regardless of size unless they happen to occupy "cleared" orbits (the ones discovered so far tend to have eccentric orbits, the ranges of which would be virtually impossible to clear of other objects)....

If Part 3 eliminates Pluto, shouldn't it also eliminate Neptune? Pluto couldn't clear Neptune out of its orbit, sure, but apparently Neptune couldn't clear Pluto either.

Actually Pluto and Neptune will never get closer than about a billion miles from each other. Pluto has an orbit "above" Neptune's on the plane of the solar system when they cross each other.

Mikey1969:PirateKing: The problem was that there weren't any standards set. Everyone just "knew" there were 9 planets. So the smart guys finally decided what counts as a planet, and Pluto, while great, just didn't fit the criteria. If we had set the minimum standards AT Pluto, there'd be dozens of planets.

And there is no problem with that. Our "standard" up to that time was 9 planets. Having "dozens" wouldn't change anything. It's like suddenly deciding that a Bassett Hound isn't a dog because his ears are too long, after calling it a dog for years. Not the best analogy, but it gets my point across well enough. Pluto orbits the Sun and has moons. It's a little shaky, but it does still orbit the sun, I would have been fine if they had set it up as the lower limit... I mean what if they discover another gas giant out past Pluto's orbit, will it not count because it is too big or something? It just seems like someone woke up one morning and arbitrarily decided what he wanted a planet to equal, and then convinced everyone else that his was way "right"...

A decision had to be made one way or the other. If Pluto is considered a planet, then so should Eris and possibly hundreds of other transneptunian objects of comparable size. A three-part definition was therefore chosen: It has to orbit the sun (if it orbits another star, it's an exoplanet or dwarf version thereof), it has to be massive enough to assume a spherical or spheroidal shape under its own gravity, and it has to have "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit. Part 3 eliminates Pluto (its orbit crosses that of Neptune), Ceres (it's in the middle of the asteroid belt), and most TNOs regardless of size unless they happen to occupy "cleared" orbits (the ones discovered so far tend to have eccentric orbits, the ranges of which would be virtually impossible to clear of other objects).

Of course, if someone discovers a Neptune-sized TNO in an eccentric orbit, they'll have to change the definition again, unless nobody complains about a "dwarf planet" many times larger than Earth.

Mikey1969:meanmutton: Marcus Aurelius: Nabb1: Hmm... Good question, but at this point I would remind everyone that our solar system lost a planet under Dubya.

You'll never hear THAT reported on FOX News, that's for sure.

Pluto Not Even Biggest 'Dwarf Planet' Any More, Thanks For Nothing W

The whole Pluto thing STILL bothers me... I still don't understand how you retroactively set standards when they already exist. If they had set the minimum standards AT Pluto, that would make sense. I guess that's what happens when a rocket scientist like Dubya is in charge of things. ;-)

The problem was that there weren't any standards set. Everyone just "knew" there were 9 planets. So the smart guys finally decided what counts as a planet, and Pluto, while great, just didn't fit the criteria. If we had set the minimum standards AT Pluto, there'd be dozens of planets.

I would think that at some point in the vast expanses between superclusters grows so large that our current universe could fit inside it, the force would be great enough to overcome the attractive forces between the matter/antimatter pairs that spring into existence, and new big bangs take place. They are unable to observe anything of the pre-existing universe because the quark-gluon plasma phase of the new big bang is opaque to all light and radiation. Our universe is probably much bigger and much older than we could imagine and our big bang is just one of many that happen recursively all over the universe.

/I offer no evidence to support this. It merely amuses me to believe that our existence isn't finite.